Pay at the top

[Lukey]

Right I can go for that guys, we should look for ways to make the govt more effective, get rid of things we don't need. But here is the problem I find, most everything that has become law or was instituted by agency heads was because people were cutting corners or just out and out doing bad things.

What I hear form your side of the street is things need to change, without any idea of why it came to be or what the noutcome of not having it in place would do. It's all about getting rid of things.

The next thing is why didn't you do this when bush was in office, oh that's right you did and look at what happened.

I don't know what the answer is, but it surely isn't just lowering taxes that mainly go to the rich and slicing regulation for the sake of making it easier to function, and not knowing if that function is going to be good fore the population.

What regulations do you want to get rid of.

40,000 laws went into effect in January 1. How many do you think we really needed?

 

[888888]

all good and well.

do you own stock?

Yes I do, and it's more important to me that the company does what is right before just worrying about upping the bottom line.
But once again I will explain what I don't agree with is that most people who have stock don't get to take advantage of Capital gains and div tax rates as our money is in 401k and IRA's. Our dividends go straight into our accounts and we pay the regular tax rates for our income as we take it out. If that is 28%, then that is what we pay, if it's 35% that is what we pay.

Most people who are in the middle class don't see a 15% tax rate. they don't have money to invest in stocks to make more. They earn their income with their hands and backs, so why should someone who sits at a desk and creates nothing with his body gets a better tax rate than a guy making his money with his body at a higher rate.

I would say we need to rewrite the tax code, but I'm really scared me to death on how it would turn out and who most likely will gain.

 

[mark14]

How about you tell us what not ONLY the evil "top" people should be making, but also what you feel the poor abused workers should be making as well.

To compare and contrast I mean.....

It doesn't matter how much those at the "top" make so long as they pay a high enough tax rate that our debt is on a downward path, workers make enough to have a comfortable existence with education for their children and an adequate retirement and the disabled or those who have fallen on hard times receive enough to survive or recover if able without exploiting the system.

A deal to institute this sensible approach was struck under George H Bush, Bill Clinton and both Republican and Democratic Congresses but broken by GW Bush and Republicans with their unfunded tax cuts disproportionately for the rich leading to our current situation and their ongoing refusal to accept a balance plan for budgetary recovery based on both making cuts they necessitated and re instituting any of the tax cuts they made.

Now give me your "conservative" explanation.

 

[888888]

40,000 laws went into effect in January 1. How many do you think we really needed?

I don't know, do you?

 

[PhilFish]

But your 401 k will not grow then, will it? point is, you are party to the system you choose to deride.
Companies need to earn to attract investors. investors seek a return on their investment. people invest in 401k's need a return..etc..

people at all levels of income sit behind desks...or use their bodies....

Yes I do, and it's more important to me that the company does what is right before just worrying about upping the bottom line.
But once again I will explain what I don't agree with is that most people who have stock don't get to take advantage of Capital gains and div tax rates as our money is in 401k and IRA's. Our dividends go straight into our accounts and we pay the regular tax rates for our income as we take it out. If that is 28%, then that is what we pay, if it's 35% that is what we pay.

Most people who are in the middle class don't see a 15% tax rate. they don't have money to invest in stocks to make more. They earn their income with their hands and backs, so why should someone who sits at a desk and creates nothing with his body gets a better tax rate than a guy making his money with his body at a higher rate.

I would say we need to rewrite the tax code, but I'm really scared me to death on how it would turn out and who most likely will gain.

 

[888888]

But your 401 k will not grow then, will it? point is, you are party to the system you choose to deride.
Companies need to earn to attract investors. investors seek a return on their investment. people invest in 401k's need a return..etc..

people at all levels of income sit behind desks...or use their bodies....

I'm still asking you, why should my money that was earned with my hands which I put away into the stock market as a savings plan, be charged a higher rate than your investments that give you a 15% tax rate?

There are a lot of problems, but I don't see anyone sitting down and figuring it out. Come up with a reason for what you want to get rid of that makes sense, just cutting cost doesn't do it for me, regulations came about because of problems, right.

 

[UPNYA2]

It doesn't matter how much those at the "top" make so long as they pay a high enough tax rate that our debt is on a downward path, workers make enough to have a comfortable existence with education for their children and an adequate retirement and the disabled or those who have fallen on hard times receive enough to survive or recover if able without exploiting the system.

A deal to institute this sensible approach was struck under George H Bush, Bill Clinton and both Republican and Democratic Congresses but broken by GW Bush and Republicans with their unfunded tax cuts disproportionately for the rich leading to our current situation and their ongoing refusal to accept a balance plan for budgetary recovery based on both making cuts they necessitated and re instituting any of the tax cuts they made.

Now give me your "conservative" explanation.

"It doesn't matter how much those at the "top" make so long as they pay a high enough tax rate...." Not specific.

Answers NOTHING.

When we see constant

in' about their pay being "unfair" or "too much", apparently the one doing the

in' feels that they somehow know what fair or enough is, otherwise how on earth could they possibly reconize "unfair" or "too much", correct?

I asked only to be presented with this............... Wasn't answered............ YET.

"...that our debt is on a downward path, workers make enough to have a comfortable existence with education for their children and an adequate retirement and the disabled or those who have fallen on hard times receive enough to survive or recover if able without exploiting the system."

Again, NO specifics.

Doesn't matter how much they make as long as our debt is on a downward path? So it is the responsibility of "the top" to put and keep our debt going downward?

Interesting.

But let me guess, it is NOT the place of these evil "top" to actually say HOW we move our debt downward, huh? Not their place to say we should CUT things, is it? No.......it is ONLY their place to pay as much as YOU demand to fund everything YOU want and reduce our debt that way, correct?

Let's see......... and then we have; "workers make enough to have a comfortable existence with education for their children and an adequate retirement and the disabled or those who have fallen on hard times receive enough to survive or recover if able without exploiting the system".......

Let me again guess, when you speak of, "make enough", "a comfortable existence with education for their children", "adequate retirement" and "enough to survive or recover if able", ALL of these TOO are to be as defined by YOU, the ones demanding OTHERS pay for it all, correct?

Ever thought about YOU accepting the defining of "make enough", "a comfortable existence with education for their children", "adequate retirement" and "enough to survive or recover if able", by those at "the top", what with you wanting to define what is 'fair" for them and all?

No? Never? I know..........

Now, just what in the livin hail are, "unfunded tax cuts", skippy???

Break it down for you.......

What is a tax? Isn't a tax money that is taken by the government from the citizens in order to function?

Therefore a tax "cut" would be the government the taking of less money from the citizens in order to function, would it not?

So how is it you believe it necessary to "fund" the taking of less?

This concept is akin to a mugger taking some of your money but not all of it and then claiming he "funded" your taxi ride home. It makes no sense and serves only to allow those who lust for more of what others have to somehoy justify it to themselves.

As for ".. their ongoing refusal to accept a balance plan for budgetary recovery based on both making cuts they necessitated and re instituting any of the tax cuts they made.", perhaps that would be corrected were it not for the fact that your side insists on defining BOTH what OTHERS should have to pay, AND what cuts are "necessary".

There is my "conservative" explanation.

Want to accept MY opinion of what is "fair" and "enough", the way you want others to take YOURS?

 

[Lukey]

I don't know, do you?

My guess is none of 'em!

 

[mark14]

Lukey,

You are pretty extremist here,

"But let me guess, it is NOT the place of these evil "top" to actually say HOW we move our debt downward, huh? Not their place to say we should CUT things, is it? No.......it is ONLY their place to pay as much as YOU demand to fund everything YOU want and reduce our debt that way, correct?"

This type of venom really doesn't deserve a reply but first it isn't so much "these evil 'top'" who are objecting to paying any more in taxes but true believers like yourself. And the rest of that rant is similarly asinine. Every sensible person recognizes we have to both make cuts and improve revenues.

Yes a "tax (is) money that is taken by the government from the citizens in order to function".

Yes "a tax "cut" would be the government the taking of less money from the citizens in order to function".

But yes "it (is) necessary to "fund" the taking of less" (ie. re raise the taxes) when you have already spent and continued to spend the uncollected taxes as Bush and the Repulbicans did and it isn't possible to make enough cuts to pay off the accumulated debt.

Your analogy "This concept is akin to a mugger taking some of your money but not all of it and then claiming he "funded" your taxi ride home. It makes no sense and serves only to allow those who lust for more of what others have to somehoy justify it to themselves."

is fanatical garbage along with the claim it is a "fact that your side insists on defining BOTH what OTHERS should have to pay, AND what cuts are "necessary"" (LOVE THOSE CAPS!!!). It seem the fact that the Republican position is tax increases are unacceptable in any form. If we can get past that it seems that a compromise on spending cuts could follow as well.

 

[UPNYA2]

Lukey,

You are pretty extremist here,

"But let me guess, it is NOT the place of these evil "top" to actually say HOW we move our debt downward, huh? Not their place to say we should CUT things, is it? No.......it is ONLY their place to pay as much as YOU demand to fund everything YOU want and reduce our debt that way, correct?"

This type of venom really doesn't deserve a reply but first it isn't so much "these evil 'top'" who are objecting to paying any more in taxes but true believers like yourself. And the rest of that rant is similarly asinine. Every sensible person recognizes we have to both make cuts and improve revenues.

Yes a "tax (is) money that is taken by the government from the citizens in order to function".

Yes "a tax "cut" would be the government the taking of less money from the citizens in order to function".

But yes "it (is) necessary to "fund" the taking of less" (ie. re raise the taxes) when you have already spent and continued to spend the uncollected taxes as Bush and the Repulbicans did and it isn't possible to make enough cuts to pay off the accumulated debt.

Your analogy "This concept is akin to a mugger taking some of your money but not all of it and then claiming he "funded" your taxi ride home. It makes no sense and serves only to allow those who lust for more of what others have to somehoy justify it to themselves."

is fanatical garbage along with the claim it is a "fact that your side insists on defining BOTH what OTHERS should have to pay, AND what cuts are "necessary"" (LOVE THOSE CAPS!!!). It seem the fact that the Republican position is tax increases are unacceptable in any form. If we can get past that it seems that a compromise on spending cuts could follow as well.

Really?

Because to me it seems the fact that the Dim position is tax increases for only SOME, are not only acceptable, but patriotic even. But ONLY in the form defined by, well, those who will NOT be affected.

If we can get past that it seems that a compromise on spending cuts could follow as well. IF those cuts could ever be agreed upon and would not have to be strictly as defined by libs of course........

So, again, no chance what so ever.

 

[mark14]

Really?

Because to me it seems the fact that the Dim position is tax increases for only SOME, are not only acceptable, but patriotic even. But ONLY in the form defined by, well, those who will NOT be affected.

If we can get past that it seems that a compromise on spending cuts could follow as well. IF those cuts could ever be agreed upon and would not have to be strictly as defined by libs of course........

So, again, no chance what so ever.

Tax increases are always only on some. They are also always more on some and less on others, just as are cuts and the Bush tax cuts disproportionately benefited the wealthy. The Republicans are on record that they won't accept any compromise that eliminates the favorable cuts for them. That is what we can't get passed.

 

[UPNYA2]

Tax increases are always only on some. They are also always more on some and less on others, just as are cuts and the Bush tax cuts disproportionately benefited the wealthy. The Republicans are on record that they won't accept any compromise that eliminates the favorable cuts for them. That is what we can't get passed.

It would appear to me that the traditional defination of the word, "compromise" is what keeps tripping you up so.

See, you state, "The Republicans are on record that they won't accept any compromise that eliminates the favorable cuts for them. That is what we can't get passed.".

But for THAT to be "the" issue for you, wouldn't that mean that we should also be saying, "The Democrats are on record that they won't accept any compromise that does not eliminate the cuts that THEY feel are favorable to Republicans."?????

Perhaps THAT is what we can't get passed.

If actual "compromise" is what you seek, should you come to the table with one notion that you simply will not give in on?

If so, how can you blame the other party if they too come to the table with one notion that they simply will not give in on?

Why act offended when confronted with others who are doing or acting exactly as YOU are doing and acting?

 

[mark14]

Nice try but no cigar. The Democrats have offered cuts in programs near and dear to them but the Republicans are completely inflexible on the matter of raising taxes on the rich even a trivial amount http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAsAhmlenM8 . It is nothing but a rhetorical trick to say it is a Democratic failure to compromise by not giving in completely on an inflexible Republican demand.

 

[888888]

If the exact same bill that was shut down by the republicans came back up with the same language except the part that says all tax cuts for the rich will stay in tack and only those for the lower income will be made to go back to pre Bush tax rates, Grover's boys would be coming up with all kinds of ways of explaining how this doesn't go against their tax pledge as they vote to accept it.

 

[mark14]

Oh look, Romney wants more tax cuts for the rich http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/05/4166210/analysis-romney-tax-plan-would.html .

 

[888888]

Oh look, Romney wants more tax cuts for the rich http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/05/4166210/analysis-romney-tax-plan-would.html .

More of that TINKLE down on the peasants